When the Malaysia proposal was announced in 1961 by Tunku Abdul Rahman, this immediately touched off local and regional controversy and opposition to "Malaysia" as a neo-colonial scheme to prolong colonial rule- especially by Indonesia and the Philippines. This led to Indonesia's Konfrontasi against Malaysia and the Philippines claim on Sabah.
On the 50th year of Malaysia's formation the Sulu claim and invasion have re-opened the debate over Sabah's unenviable status and other controversies surrounding the Malaysia issue.
The article by Raymond Tombung “How to Argue Against the Sabah Claim” (original article published in the Taib government controlled Borneo Post) summaries the legal political history of Sabah and Malaysia. Unfortunately, on closer examination it turns out to be a piece of sophistry constructed solely to legitimise Sabah's inclusion into the Malaysia federation in 1963 and Malayan rule.
The writer used the findings of the Cobbold Commission of Enquiry on Malaysia to make his point that the formation of Malaysia had popular local support.
This is inaccurate, mischievous and continues the official misrepresentations of historical facts used to legitimise the formation of Malaysia. It is similar to those recent arguments made by P.M. Najib and others that an affirmative referendum was held on the Malaysia issue in Borneo. There never was one ever held. At least the Tombung article frankly admits this.
Cobbold Commission findings not a referendum - just a poll
In Paragraph 15 of the article, the writer mentioned that the Report of the Cobbold Commission of Enquiry on Malaysia in North Borneo and Sarawak (Report finalised in August 1962) had found that 2/3 of people (this referred to 4,000 people in Sabah and Sarawak interviewed by the Commission) supported formation of Malaysia.
This is a distortion of the figures given. The Report said the Commission found that of the 4,000 peopled polled, only 1/3 had expressed unconditional support for the idea, 1/3 were unsure and only supported the idea if conditions were attached and 1/3 were definitely against the Malaysia proposal and wanted real independence without Malaysia. The results were juggled to make it looked like 2/3 of those polled supported Malaysia.
The 4000 people interviewed represented on (roughly) only 4% of the total population in Sabah and Sarawak at the time. Even if the findings were correct, how could this be claimed as democratic representation of the opinion of 2/3 of the whole population? It was not a referendum in the first place.
The Cobbold Commission comprised only British ex-officials and Malayans who were hardly were “impartial or independent authorities”. They were the interested parties dead set on forcing “Malaysia” on the Borneo people. It was a clear conflict of interest for Britain to appoint the Cobbold Commission to sideline the independent authority of the UN by not organising the referendum.
As it turned out, the Report was so transparently slanted in favour of “formation” as it clearly supported the British Malayan plan and was made with racist and cold war anti-communist political arguments which an independent body should not have expressed.
Further, the British and Malayans had deliberately avoided holding a proper independent UN supervised referendum on the Malaysia formation issue on the reason that they did not have time to conduct a referendum! It was the people's future they were playing with! So the Borneo people were never given a chance to say “Yes” or “No” to Malaysia in a free and fair vote.
The Manila Accord
The findings of the Cobbold Commission were rejected by Indonesia and Philippines. To neutralise their opposition talks were initiated with Indonesia and Philippines on the Malaysia question in July 1963. The talks were recorded as the Manila Accord signed on 31 July 1963 which nevertheless reflected the British failure to hold a referendum.
Article 10 of the Accord stated that Malaysia would only be acceptable “provided that” the Borneo people's support was ascertained by “an impartial and independent authority”. But this was never held. The British might have been worried they would get a “No” vote as seen in the Brunei Legislative council elections of August 1962 where the Brunei people overwhelmingly voted for the anti-Malaysia Brunei People's Party.
The Manila Accord did not resolved the Philippines' Sabah claim but it effectively put it on hold. With this live claim, Sabah would not have legally been included Malaysia. It follows that the whole Malaysia formation was illegal and void from the beginning.
What is interesting that Malaya was negotiating Sabah's future even before it had any legal authority to do so. And the people most affected the North Borneo people were not even consulted or asked to join in as an interested party. This reflected the intention and eagerness of Malayan leaders to annex Sabah. This was reinforced by the fact that when a the review on Malaysia was due in 1973 it was flatly denied by P.M. Razak.
That meeting left Sabah's status in limbo but Malaysia was hastily formed by 16 September 1963. They must have been thinking “possession is 9/10th of the Law” (!).
The writer's conclusion is thus faulty and highly misleading. Readers should see through this opinion as piece of sophistry to support the argument that Sabah was legally constituted as part of Malaysia.
This leaves the issue that matters most of all unresolved - that of the Sabah people's right to self-determination which has been kicked around as political football for 50 years.
What is arguable is the question whether Sabah has real self-determination within Malaysia or what the people have increasingly demanded- self-determination outside Malaysia as “independent Sabah”!
Sabah belongs to the Sabah people and they alone should be the final party to determine their destiny and until they do, no foreign powers should arbitrarily steal their rights.
Submitted by Conan D
The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) recognises and respects the decision taken by the people of Sabah to join Malaysia in 1963, says chairman Muslimin Sema. The Sabah people, he said, had the right to determine their own destiny by joining Malaysia, 50 years ago, and that right should not be disputed by any quarters.
ReplyDelete“We (the MNLF) recognised the desire of the Sabah people to decide and determine their own destiny. They have decided to join Malaysia and we accede to their desire, that is our position,” he told Bernama in an exclusive interview via telephone from Manila Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteThe dovish Muslimin, who is currently the vice-mayor of Cotabato City in southern Philippines, said he had been to Sabah in 1973 and personally witnessed the happiness felt by the Sabahans, led by their leaders after joining Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteyeah,yeah I get it! Did you swing by in 1976? I was too raw. Tell me, were they grinning from ear to ear? A bit hard of hearing alsolah people these days, I think. Could be due to overzealousness pressing the eardrums?
Delete“They have decided and we accepted it,” he said, adding that he still had many relatives in Sabah, who were loyal Malaysian citizens and earning a good and prosperous livelihood. “They have been able to earn a good and prosperous life in Sabah, which they are incapable of, had they remained in southern Philippines. I don’t want anything bad to happen to them because of what is happening now,” he said. The MNLF, he said, considered Sabah and Malaysia as their “big brother”.
ReplyDeleteThe allegations stated that the armed terrorists were “invited” to Sabah by leaders aligned with Malaysia’s opposition party. Nevertheless, the MNLF leader believes Jamalul Kiram “does not have the capacity” to carry out the complicated armed operation of sending armed terrorists across the sea to Sabah. “It is quite surprising that they have the capacity to send an expedition (to Sabah) like that. It is not easy to go to another country and kill people,” he said.
ReplyDeleteThe joining of Sabah in the formation of Malaysia in 1963 eliminates any claim on the state, previously known as North Borneo, said a professor from Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Assoc Professor Dr Bilcher Bala. as such, any claims made on Sabah today was invalid.
ReplyDelete“The formation of Malaysia in 1963 eliminates any claim on Sabah. In 1888 Sabah became a British protectorate and under a 1903 protocol, the Philippines came under the control of the United States, but without Sabah included. “In 1946 Sabah was handed over completely to the British and in 1963 it became part of Malaysia,” he said.
ReplyDeleteHence, he said, the action by Jamalul Kiram III in attacking Sabah, purportedly to claim the heritage of the Sulu sultanate, was a crime which could be regarded a terrorist attack.
ReplyDeleteOn the payment by the Malaysian government to the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate, he said it was just a compensation payment or gift for a 1787 “lease permanent” agreement. Hence, the payment had to be made until death (the term used in the agreement is for as long as there is the moon and stars), he added.
ReplyDeleteBilcher said the people of Sabah chose to be with Malaysia as contained in the Cobbold Report. “Only the Sulu Sultan regarded the Sabah people as his, but the Sabah people did not recognise the Sultan, except the Governor (now known as the Yang Dipertua Negeri).
ReplyDelete“Therefore, the claim that he is the heir of the Sulu Sultanate, even if the Sultan exists, on Sabah is void because of the various agreements. “The fact is, Sulu does not have a government or a country to warrant it the right to make any claim. The claim is just by an individual,” he added.
ReplyDeleteIn KUALA LUMPUR, former foreign minister Tan Sri Syed Hamid Albar, commenting on the issue, said that the payment of about RM5,000 a year by the Malaysian government to the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate until today was not lease payment, but cession payment.
ReplyDeleteHe claimed to have seen a cheque for the amount paid to the heirs of the Sulu Sultanate when he was foreign minister from 1999 to 2008. “The cession payment is like the payment made by the Penang government to the Kedah Sultan when the island was given to the British,” he added.
ReplyDeleteHe also said that the self-proclaimed Sulu Sultan could not bring his claim to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). “The ICJ only handles cases involving a government which is recognised, The Sulu Sultanate is not a government,” he added.
ReplyDeleteHe said the administration and governance of the Sulu Sultanate ended when Sultan Jamalul Kiram II signed the Carpenter Agreement in 1915 with the United States of America, which controlled the Philippines then.
ReplyDeleteSyed Hamid said the Philippines did make its claim over Sabah at a time when Malaysia and Indonesia were staking their claim over Sipadan and Ligatan at the ICJ in 2001. “The Philippines tried to join in the claim. However, ICJ rejected Philippines’ intervention in the claim over Sipadan and Ligitan which are in Sabah waters. “This clearly showed that the Philippines has no right on the state,” he added.
ReplyDeleteSyed Hamid said Sabah was a sovereign entity under Malaysia because a report by the Cobbold Commission, set up prior to the formation of Malaysia, stated that the people of Sabah and Sarawak wanted to be independent as part of Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, historian Professor Dr Ramlah Adam expressed confidence of the government having the documents on the agreement on the cession money. She said the agreement stated that the payment was to be made to the heirs and not the Sulu Sultanate. “It is money for the heirs, not the sultanate. The Sulu Sultanate no longer exists,” she added.
ReplyDeleteSabahans are determined to bounce back after a month of living in uncertainty.
ReplyDeleteOn the ground and in the social media, the feeling is that they should take charge of their lives.
ReplyDeleteSelina Shim, a 29-year-old government officer here, feels that the situation is now safe and calm.
“Those people who fled should come back to Lahad Datu town. Don't worry, schools and businesses are already open,” she said.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAmbuga Abdullah, a 37-year-old government officer in Semporna, said there were some people who were still scared, but they should not worry as “everything will be fine soon ...things are returning to normal”.
ReplyDeleteTwitterers were also doing their bit to restore calm among Sabahans after the Lahad Datu and Semporna attacks that started about two weeks ago.
The #SabahBounceBack hashtag started by Sabah Tourism, Culture and Environment Minister Datuk Masidi Manjun on Monday has received positive response from Sabahans.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the author.
ReplyDeleteAS IT SHOULD BE! RESPECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE OF SABAH! RESPECT THE HUMAN RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION of the PEOPLE of SABAH! Through the Cobbold Commission that created Malaysia, the people of Sabah were consulted by the British about their fate as a North Borneo nation. And the people of Sabah decided ON THEIR OWN FREE WILL that they and SABAH IS PART OF MALAYSIA! SABAH is for the PEOPLE of SABAH, NOT for a Haciendero of a Sultan of Sulu!
ReplyDeleteTHE incursion into Sabah by a ragtag “army” of a now defunct “sultanate” would be comical, if not for the tragic consequences that has followed.
ReplyDeleteThat the so-called sultan declared a jihad and the self-styled princess calling the Malaysian army un-Islamic lent a surrealistic aura to the whole episode.
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains that theirs was an act of terrorism perpetrated by armed bandits on an unsuspecting state and her people.
ReplyDeleteTo use Islam and jihad in this totally illegal and inhumane act of aggression against a peaceful state which has been giving many of them unlimited generosity, is a misuse and abuse of the religion and God of the highest order.
ReplyDeleteSo, what does Jamalul Kiram want? He has been shifty about this. On one count he said he doesn’t want to claim Sabah. On another, he said he wants recognition. Okay. So we call him a sultan. Isn’t that recognition? Of course not. He has said he is the poorest sultan in the world. So he wants money. Forget altruism. Forget the advancement of his people. Forget honour. Forget dignity. It is just money.
ReplyDeleteOne can try to grasp the historical dynamics of this so-called Sulu Sultanate’s claim over North Borneo. Even the origin of this claim — that the Sultan of Brunei had given this area to the Sulu Sultanate for the latter’s help in a battle — is historically denied by the Brunei Sultanate.
ReplyDeleteThere is only one political reality and that is — Sabah is part of Malaysia and Malaysia has territorial sovereignty over Sabah. Period. During the post-world war de-colonisation period, between February and April 1962, the Cobbold Commission, in its meetings in Sarawak and Sabah, concluded that more than two thirds of the people wished that the two areas be part of Malaya.
ReplyDeleteIn the same period, international laws began to recognise without limitation, the right of the people of a territory to determine their own ruling. This right is known as the right to self-determination, a right enshrined in the General Assembly resolution 1541(XV).
ReplyDeleteThe so-called Sultanate of Sulu must be aware that territoriality of a sovereignty must be determined at a finite era or period in accordance with the acceptable norm of international laws. Otherwise, what would prevent lunatics from claiming he or she was the descendant of Caliph Al-Makmun from the Abbasid dynasty and thus, had rights over a third of the world? Or, a descendant of the Thai representative who was killed by Parameswara claiming Singapore? Malaysia has every right to defend its sovereignty over any part of its territory in any manner she sees fit.
ReplyDeleteBeberapa pakar sejarah Rabu menegaskan Sabah ialah hak Malaysia dan tidak boleh dituntut oleh mana-mana pihak kerana rakyat negeri itu telahpun bersetuju dengan pembentukan Malaysia dalam tinjauan kajian Suruhanjaya Cobbold pada tahun 1962.
ReplyDeleteKetua Program Sejarah Sekolah Sains Sosial, Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS), Mosli Tarsat berkata berdasarkan bukti sejarah, ia jelas menunjukkan status negeri Sabah memang sah sebagai sebahagian daripada Malaysia dan diiktiraf Pertubuhan Bangsa-bangsa Bersatu (PBB).
ReplyDeleteWalaupun Sabah yang sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Borneo Utara sebelum pembentukan Malaysia, pernah dikuasai dan dipengaruhi oleh Kesultanan Brunei dan Sulu, Syarikat Berpiagam Borneo Utara British, Jepun dan penjajah British, tetapi selepas 1963, keadaannya berubah setelah Sabah bersama dalam pembentukan Malaysia
ReplyDeletesemasa Suruhanjaya Cobbold membuat tinjauan menyeluruh di Sabah dan Sarawak selama empat bulan mengenai penubuhan Malaysia, suruhanjaya itu menerima 2,200 memorandum, dengan lebih kurang 80 peratus rakyat kedua-dua negeri itu menyokong penubuhan Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteOleh itu, Sabah secara rasmi menyertai pembentukan Malaysia pada 16 Sept 1963 setelah mencapai kemerdekaan pada 31 Ogos 1963.
ReplyDeleteSabah ialah hak Malaysia mengikut undang-undang antarabangsa dan tidak boleh dituntut oleh mana-mana pihak.
ReplyDeleteTuntutan yang menyebabkan kematian harus dikenakan hukuman undang-undang.
DeleteSementara itu, di KUALA LUMPUR, pakar sejarah Prof Datuk Dr Ramlah Adam yang turut bersetuju dengan kenyataan Rais itu berkata Malaysia ialah sebuah negara berdaulat yang diiktiraf dunia.
ReplyDelete"Oleh itu, tidak timbul soal tuntutan sebahagian daripadanya oleh mana-mana pihak sekalipun. Kenyataan Menteri Penerangan Komunikasi dan Kebudayaan semalam adalah tepat dari segi sejarahnya.
"Tidak timbul soal tuntutan, perkara itu sudah selesai lama dahulu," kata Felo Utama Unit Kajian Strategik Universiti Malaysia Perlis ketika dihubungi di sini.
Ramlah berkata pungutan suara oleh Suruhanjaya Cobbold itu menyamai pungutan suara yang dilakukan untuk meninjau pendapat penduduk Singapura berhubung penubuhan Malaysia pada 1962 melalui Referendum Singapura.
ReplyDelete"Mereka tidak boleh menuntut hanya berdasarkan sejarah. Contohnya kerajaan Siam menyerahkan negeri Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan dan Terengganu untuk bernaung di bawah pemerintahan Inggeris pada satu masa dulu, kerajaan Siam (pada masa ini) sememangnya tidak boleh tuntut balik negeri-negeri itu," katanya.
Ramlah berkata rakyat Malaysia terutama di Sabah perlu jelas mengenai perkara itu dan perlu ada kesedaran untuk negara terus kekal aman serta menyokong kedaulatan negara.
ReplyDelete"Kita bercakap tentang keselamatan dan kedaulatan negara, ini bukan masanya untuk mempolitikkan perkara ini atau menyalahkan kerajaan," tegas Ramlah.
Selesaikan isu ini dalam masa tersingkat. Tuduhan yang menjejas emosi harus dielakkan.
DeleteOK OK We got your message across etc etc etc. But We have a question. What is the literal translation of the word "padjak" in English? What is the Malaysian word for "CEDE"? Just because the Sabahans did not know that the Sultan of Sulu owns the land which was leased by a British Company diminish his right as the owner of the land? Just because the Sultan did not rule over the Sabahan people BECAUSE the land was managed by the British company diminish his right as the owner of the land? Does that mean that Malaysian law could say that if I let you rent my house makes you the owner of the house? Does that mean that your children , they do not know personally the owner of the house, gives them the right to pursue their claim of ownership of the house by right of heritage? Does that show on Malaysian law or even on Islamic law? Did the Cobbold commission conducted a "referendum" that is in other words an ELECTION or just a mere POLL SURVEY just like what Pulse Asia is RANDOMLY doing? If it was a Referendum, can you please post the statistics of the ELECTION votes? Did all people joined the ELECTION or just the 4000 according to the Cobbold report? Are these people registered voters? If the 4000 represented the whole population of Sabah then by all means do you also have the CENSUS statistics to support that? What are the names of these people and the ethnic tribes they are representing? Include also the age and occupation? Who are the people who consisted the Cobbold Commission? British? Malayans? or people who are disinterested and are genuinely from the UN in other words another nation or race like Americans or French? Why did Brunei and Singapore LEFT the federation? Was there something WRONG?
ReplyDeleteThese are the questions that should have been answered and should reinforce your claims. If you could counter the Philippine claim to Sabah by supporting your claim with legal facts and documents and written records that could answer these questions and many other questions then you have a strong case and should pursue the peaceful and legal path of settling the dispute to the UN and not by committing genocide. Your government's reaction to the so called intrusion is over reactive rather than being prudent. 300 intruders and only half are lightly armed are matched with three combat battalions and super sonic fighter jets? Are you serious? That looks like an over kill to us. A numbers game if you can call that. The Philippines has a pending case to ICJ regarding it's claim on Sabah but the question is WHY DOES MALAYSIA INTENTIONALLY IGNORES IT? If indeed your claim is stronger then theirs why are you afraid to test and prove it? Afraid to lose Sabah? Afraid to lose the OIL? If really you do have a strong cause then PROVE IT IN COURT! Settle it once and for all! Is that hard to do? Remember that you are a Muslim country. And what you are doing right now is killing your fellow Muslim and even branding them as "terrorists". Did they blew themselves to be called a terrorist? Did they bomb cities to branded like one? Your security forces are the ones who made the situation worse and make these people look that they terrorize the populace well in fact they were there taking their peace. Your police and soldiers attacked and hunted these people like dogs and what do you expect in return? Of course they will defend themselves. It was your police who provoked the Sultan followers to fire their guns. Your men in uniform are itching for this and now they reap what they sow.
1. If "the Sultan of Sulu owns the land which was leased by a British Company", why "The Philippines has a pending case to ICJ regarding it's claim on Sabah"? The PH Govt is an internationally recognized and established institution elected by the people. Are you saying that the PH Govt recognized the Sultanate of Sulu as a legal institution per your Constitution?
Delete2. We knew MNLF was recognized internationally and by the PH Govt sometime ago. Now it is the MILF. Somewhow, the Sultanate of Sulu was never in the picture. Even the heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu rejected this Kiram guy as the Sultan. When Misuari was the Governor then, did he include the Kiram in his administration as a form of giving recognition? Never. Don't blame Sabahan/Malaysian for that too. Perhaps that explain "WHY DOES MALAYSIA INTENTIONALLY IGNORES IT".
3." Did the Cobbold commission conducted a "referendum" that is in other words an ELECTION or just a mere POLL SURVEY.."
It is a good question. The Cobbold Commission was a legal instrument of the British legal system. It was designed to satisfy the British legal system which was accepted by UN. Who are you to question that? Are you telling me, the Sultanate of Sulu had a better legal system then?
4. "Your police and soldiers attacked and hunted these people like dogs and what do you expect in return?".
Nothing.
5. "It was your police who provoked the Sultan followers to fire their guns."
Since you were there as a witness for the event, present this fact to ICJ, ICC and the UN. Its a good start to file your claim.
6. "Your men in uniform are itching for this and now they reap what they sow. "
Exactly.
7. "Your security forces are the ones who made the situation worse and make these people look that they terrorize the populace well in fact they were there taking their peace".
Indeed you are right again. We are so terrified by our security forces that we stay indoor and switch our aircon. Who told you that the Sulu gunmen terrorize the local Suluk populace? The gunmen were having picnic with guns to shoot wild boars or something and share the feast together with the villagers. I don't know why our security forces are very panicky about it. Do you panic when armed robbers enter your bedroom? I don't think so.
8. "Remember that you are a Muslim country".
I didnot know that. Are you Muslim too? The gunmen are Muslim. They enter Muslim villagers. They enter Muslim houses too. You mean Muslim can enter any house as they like right? Muslim houses in the village lack many things. Next time, please enter non-Muslim houses..got nice women, food and money. You have nice religion. Please tell the world about it. I am sure many will become Muslim.
9. "If indeed your claim is stronger then theirs why are you afraid to test and prove it? Afraid to lose Sabah? Afraid to lose the OIL? "
Of course we are afraid to lose the oil. What is wrong with that?
Do you want the oil? I don't think so, because to you and Kiram 'honor is'.
Of course we are afraid to lose Sabah. Do you know to whom should we give it to?
The moral of the story is once upon a time, Sabah was a desolated place full of pirates and of no value at all, that's why the Sultan of Brunei gave it to your Sultan. Then your Sultan leased it or ceded it or padjak it to the British company. Then, your Sultan laughed all the way to the bank collecting some money for nothing. As a guarantee he conned the stupid British to pay him for a period "as long as there are moon and sun". That's is what the Sultan was getting legally because the sun and the moon are still there.
Don't blame Sabahan/Malaysian. It was your Sultan, not the current Kiram or the heirs, who sealed the deal. It is not my shit. It is not your shit.
Kesultanan Sulu sudah berakhir. Harus terima hakikat.
ReplyDeleteFor the frist time in history... the last 50 years, Sarawakians will celebrate Sarawak Independence Day, please share this news to your Sarawakian friends, tq
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/events/410787825678713/
Sabah belongs to Malaysia and cannot be claimed by others as Sabahans had agreed to the formation of Malaysia in a referendum held by the Cobbold Commission in 1962.
ReplyDeleteMosli Tarsat said historical evidence clearly shows the status of Sabah as a valid part of Malaysia and recognised by the United Nations (UN).
ReplyDeleteAlthough Sabah, formerly known as North Borneo before the formation of Malaysia, was controlled and influenced by the Sultanate of Brunei and Sulu, the North Borneo Chartered Company, Japan and the British, but after 1963, the situation changed after the formation of Malaysia," he told Bernama in Kota Kinabalu today.
ReplyDeleteThe Cobbold Commission which held a four month referendum of Sabah and Sarawak for the formation of Malaysia received 2,200 memorandum with about 80 percent of the people supporting the creation of Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteThe Commission's report was submitted to the British government and Malaysia was formed by combining Malaya, Singapore, Brunei, Sarawak and Sabah (North Borneo).
ReplyDeleteMalaysia is a sovereign state that is recognised globally.
ReplyDelete"As such, there is no question of claim by any party. The statement by the Information Communications and Culture minister yesterday is historically accurate," he said.
ReplyDeleteRamlah said the referendum on Sabah and Sarawak by the Cobbold Commission, is similar to the Singapore Referendum for the formation of Malaysia in 1962.
ReplyDeleteThey cannot claim just based on history. For example, the Siam government handed Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu over to the British and cannot claim the states.
ReplyDeleteRamlah said Malaysians, especially those in Sabah must be clear about the matter so that the country will remain peaceful and support national sovereignty.
ReplyDelete"We are talking about the security and sovereignty of the country. This is not the time to politicise this issue or blame the government," said Ramlah.
ReplyDeleteProf Emeritus Dr Khoo Kay Kim said North Borneo (Sabah) was separated from Sulu since 1885 and was administered by the North Borneo Chartered Company.
ReplyDelete"This matter (separation of Sabah from Sulu) happened long before the Cobbold Commission came in 1963. As such, it is difficult to change the situation," he added.